Political Compass scores.

[Angleter]

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

Catholic Communists- I'm Catholic and I know that that's an oxymoron.

[Yootopia]

Actually England does worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_fo ... population.

Yeah, allow me to piss on your chips slightly and point this out for you - the formula excludes oil and gas revenue. If Scotland leaves the union and gets the oil and gas fields (as it really should), the rest of the UK would be quite a lot poorer.

[Pope Joan]

Dear Aetheras:

I would agree.

I think this is because transnationals have used the old formulae of jim crow and false consciousness to hypnotize large numbers of American voters.

But now that Bud is owned by Europeans and Gm has cut back NASCAR support, I suspect that some of this drunken white supremacist attitude will wane.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I'm not even going to touch the right-wingers over there, save to accuse you all of being cruel and heartless, concerned with profit over humanity :-P

hm i may have rushed it

basically im saying that i was suprised to find that obvious atheist to be only slightly communist, i generally find atheists, at least the ones i know, to be almost always communist liberals, while it is the more religious folks who tend to be capitalist and conservitive

Um, while there may be a trend, there are definitely counterexamples. Such as, for example, myself.

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

I don't know what definitions you're working from, but Marxists are not, by any stretch of the words, 'extreme liberals'.

Actually England does worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_fo ... population.

Also the 'British' race does not exist. The English are a Germanic, Anglo-Saxon people, and the others (even the Cornish) are Celts. They have less reason to be together certainly than Germany and Austria, and even than the Scandinavian states.

This is true, but for the wrong reason. The 'British' race does not exist because races, as a subset of humanity, are bullshit.

Catholic Communists- I'm Catholic and I know that that's an oxymoron.

I'm Communist, and I know it isn't. While I'm not Catholic as well, you might find Hélder Câmara's famous quote applicable: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

Edit: Not to say, that is, that he was a Communist, but rather that it's quite easy to combine socialism or even communism with Christianity.

[Khadgar]

I've drifted more liberal socially the last couple of years.

[Robarya]

the americans had already being giving massive amounts of supplies to the allies, in my opinion, the russians won the war, the biggest blunder hitler ade was making an enemy of stalin, but i know alot of americans hate to admit this but by the time they got involved we were already winning thanks to the soviets, i suppose it cause of that holhe cold war thing, they hate to admit the soviets did some good

That's true. But not having to worry about the massive American manpower pool being put to use could in itself have changed the outcome of the war significantly, even if it would not have resulted in a German victory. You see, when Germany only fought the Soviet Union and Great Britain, they were roughly equal in terms of production and manpower (even though the latter two had the upper hand somewhat.) But with the U.S. on the side of the Soviets and British, the Allied production and manpower severely outnumbered the Germans on many accounts, which in a long-term war meant the Allies were more or less assured a victory.

And yes, I would say that Russia contributed the most to the Allies, but one shouldn't underestimate the American presence. Like I said above, the American presence from December 1941 and onwards more or less meant that Germany was forced to always be on the attack in the East, even when the odds were against them, as waiting would have led to a certain defeat.

Had Germany not declared war on the U.S., they would have been able to adopt a defensive posture on the eastern front after Barbarossa. In 1941, the highly populated Belarus and Ukraine fell into the hands of Germany, and denying the Russians this manpower could in a long-term war have led to a German victory. That is, if the Americans hadn't declared war on their own accord too soon.

[Angleter]

Actually England does worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_fo ... population.

Yeah, allow me to piss on your chips slightly and point this out for you - the formula excludes oil and gas revenue. If Scotland leaves the union and gets the oil and gas fields (as it really should), the rest of the UK would be quite a lot poorer.

If you're anti-Union and I'm anti-Union then... why are we arguing? Either way, oil money is rapidly decreasing and in a few decades will not be relevant. Barnett, however, will.

Catholic Communists- I'm Catholic and I know that that's an oxymoron.

I'm Communist, and I know it isn't. While I'm not Catholic as well, you might find Hélder Câmara's famous quote applicable: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

And the bit about Atheism and organised religion being but an underhanded method to continue oppression of the workers?

[Aetheras]

the americans had already being giving massive amounts of supplies to the allies, in my opinion, the russians won the war, the biggest blunder hitler ade was making an enemy of stalin, but i know alot of americans hate to admit this but by the time they got involved we were already winning thanks to the soviets, i suppose it cause of that holhe cold war thing, they hate to admit the soviets did some good

That's true. But not having to worry about the massive American manpower pool being put to use could in itself have changed the outcome of the war significantly, even if it would not have resulted in a German victory. You see, when Germany only fought the Soviet Union and Great Britain, they were roughly equal in terms of production and manpower (even though the latter two had the upper hand somewhat.) But with the U.S. on the side of the Soviets and British, the Allied production and manpower severely outnumbered the Germans on many accounts, which in a long-term war meant the Allies were more or less assured a victory.

And yes, I would say that Russia contributed the most to the Allies, but one shouldn't underestimate the American presence. Like I said above, the American presence from December 1941 and onwards more or less meant that Germany was forced to always be on the attack in the East, even when the odds were against them, as waiting would have led to a certain defeat.

Had Germany not declared war on the U.S., they would have been able to adopt a defensive posture on the eastern front after Barbarossa. In 1941, the highly populated Belarus and Ukraine fell into the hands of Germany, and denying the Russians this manpower could in a long-term war have led to a German victory. That is, if the Americans hadn't declared war on their own accord too soon.

alright good points, well we all played our part didnt we

[Aetheras]

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

Catholic Communists- I'm Catholic and I know that that's an oxymoron.

jesus himself preached communsism ''give up your possesions'' ''dont be rich' ''give everything to the poor ''we are all equal'' jesus was a commie! lol

[Aetheras]

I don't know what definitions you're working from, but Marxists are not, by any stretch of the words, 'extreme liberals'.

parhaps marxism may be incorrect, but they themselves have called themselves socialist, that is where there idea of unity is born from

[UNIverseVERSE]

And the bit about Atheism and organised religion being but an underhanded method to continue oppression of the workers?

I raise only two objections. Firstly, you are confusing Communism with Marxism -- a common mistake, but an important one. Secondly, a reasonable argument can indeed be constructed that organised religion has often worked with the state as an oppressive force. Of course, one counters that by observing that a) religion doesn't have to be organised, and b) this merely applies to some aspects of organised religion, which can be removed while keeping the key parts in shape.

jesus himself preached communsism ''give up your possesions'' ''dont be rich' ''give everything to the poor ''we are all equal'' jesus was a commie! lol

More accurately, Jesus' teachings can be interpreted as supportive of communist/leftist principles. Which is not quite the same thing.

I recommend looking up the Christian Left about now.

parhaps marxism may be incorrect, but they themselves have called themselves socialist, that is where there idea of unity is born from

That's still not 'extreme liberalism'. Liberalism and Socialism are two very distinct political ideologies, and extreme liberalism is not socialism by any sensible definition of the terms. Please learn what the words you are using mean.

[Western Mercenary Unio]

that's rediculious, i think its very clear what im saying and i think your saying that so you don't have to give a decent reply

He's a Grammar nazi. But, you could use spellcheck

[Aetheras]

And the bit about Atheism and organised religion being but an underhanded method to continue oppression of the workers?

I raise only two objections. Firstly, you are confusing Communism with Marxism -- a common mistake, but an important one. Secondly, a reasonable argument can indeed be constructed that organised religion has often worked with the state as an oppressive force. Of course, one counters that by observing that a) religion doesn't have to be organised, and b) this merely applies to some aspects of organised religion, which can be removed while keeping the key parts in shape.

jesus himself preached communsism ''give up your possesions'' ''dont be rich' ''give everything to the poor ''we are all equal'' jesus was a commie! lol

More accurately, Jesus' teachings can be interpreted as supportive of communist/leftist principles. Which is not quite the same thing.

I recommend looking up the Christian Left about now.

parhaps marxism may be incorrect, but they themselves have called themselves socialist, that is where there idea of unity is born from

That's still not 'extreme liberalism'. Liberalism and Socialism are two very distinct political ideologies, and extreme liberalism is not socialism by any sensible definition of the terms. Please learn what the words you are using mean.

lesten dude, stop telling me i don't understand this stuff, iv studied it long and hard (yes i said long and hard) the IRA are NOT extreme liberals, they are socialist, autoritarian socialist to be more exact, akin to the likes of stalinism or sein fein (one of our parties)
marxism and communism are indeed different, but not in beliefs, marxism is the world view that that communism should be brought about through a revolution and workers state, which is the instrument of bringing about communism, the final stage of marxism, the utopia

edit: i know i contradicted myself there, but i was wrong the first time

[No Names Left Damn It]

Who really cares about the Real IRA though?

Those affected by the Omagh bombing which killed 28, including a Spanish tourist family and an unborn pair of twins? The families of those killed by the RIRA since 1998?

[The Tofu Islands]

lesten dude, stop telling me i don't understand this stuff, iv studied it long and hard (yes i said long and hard) the IRA are NOT extreme liberals, they are socialist, autoritarian socialist to be more exact, akin to the likes of stalinism or sein fein (one of our parties)

Then what were you trying to say here?

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

[No Names Left Damn It]

He's a Grammar nazi. But, you could use spellcheck

No comma after but.

[Aetheras]

lesten dude, stop telling me i don't understand this stuff, iv studied it long and hard (yes i said long and hard) the IRA are NOT extreme liberals, they are socialist, autoritarian socialist to be more exact, akin to the likes of stalinism or sein fein (one of our parties)

Then what were you trying to say here?

infact, even our terrorist are extreme liberals, the IRA are a marxist/communist group, despite the general idea that they are extreme right wing

see edit in post, i was mistaken

[Western Mercenary Unio]

No comma after but.

Grammar police strikes again!

[Psychotic Mongooses]

Who really cares about the Real IRA though?

4 people and their pet cat.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Grammar police strikes again!

That should either be "Grammar policeman strikes again." or "Grammar police strike again."

[The Tofu Islands]

Grammar police strikes again!

I'm pretty sure that would be "strike" not "strikes".

[No Names Left Damn It]

4 people and their pet cat.

Or of course the hundreds of people who've been affected by them.

[No Names Left Damn It]

I'm pretty sure that would be "strike" not "strikes".

Beat you to it.

[Conserative Morality]

No comma after but.

Grammar police strikes again!

[Aetheras]

Grammar police strikes again!

I'm pretty sure that would be "strike" not "strikes".

lmao
7ry and f1x 73h GRAMM3R 1N 7H1s UP Kopp3R
hehehehehe